![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The practice of proselytisation is increasingly challenged in many parts of the world, especially in South Asia. Laws to prohibit ‘improper’ or ‘unethical’ conversions are being discussed in several countries. International legal texts are vague and elusive when it comes to the practice of proselytisation, and are susceptible to different interpretations of how to regulate proselytism. Drawing on the argument that religious freedom is trapped within the antinomies of inviolability and regulation, I argue that anti-conversion legislation falls precisely into such antinomies. Hence, political actors are increasingly able to use such antinomies to legitimise and justify their own reading of international norms. A study of the policy process of the anti-conversion bill in Sri Lanka reveals that the formation of political alliances between religious affiliations had a decisive impact on the outcome of the process. This case shows how legislative reform on religious practice and proselytism may be played out in a local context with multiple religious communities, and the importance of formulating an inclusive legislative proposal that speaks to all stakeholders. This paper looks into the politics on the ground around the anti-conversion bill, and how several religious organisations (Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Buddhists) formed and broke up political alliances during the process. In addition to the core argumentation to support and/or oppose anti-conversion legislation, particular alliances and affiliations were important during the process. Why did the All Ceylon Hindu Congress (ACHC) initiate the anti-conversion bill proposal, only to oppose it later? Why were the Catholic groups an interesting partner for the Buddhist nationalists when they sought to create a compromise bill in 2006? By considering the local religious and political context of Sri Lanka, this paper will argue how anti-conversion legislation is not solely dependent on international norms, but also upon the partners and affiliations advocating for them on the ground.
Notes
1 Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, in force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171.
2 Any reference to the ‘anti-conversion bill’ in Sri Lanka refers to this text, but I will call it the JHU-bill.
3 See RM Feener and J Finucane (eds), Proselytizing and the Limits of Religious Pluralism in Contemporary Asia (Springer, 2014).
4 See Asma Jahangir, ‘Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, Addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief’, UN Doc A/HRC/10/8/Add.3 (26 January 2009).
5 See also B Matthews, ‘Christian Evangelical Conversions and the Politics of Sri Lanka’ (2007) 80(3) Pacific Affairs 455; S Berkwitz, ‘Buddhism and the Politics of Conversion in Sri Lanka’ in Rosalind Hackett (ed), Proselytization Revisited (Equinox, 2008).
6 See A Gill, The Political Origins of Religious Liberty (CUP, 2008).
7 For an introduction to Jathika Hela Urumaya, see Mahinda Deegalle, ‘JHU Politics for Peace and a Righteous State’ in M Deegalle (ed), Buddhism, Conflict and Violence in Modern Sri Lanka (Routledge, 2006).
8 Saba Mahmood and Peter G Danchin, ‘Politics of Religious Freedom: Contested Genealogies’ (2014) 113 South Atlantic Q 4.
9 See T Stahnke, ‘Proselytism and the Freedom to Change Religion in International Human Rights Law’ (2001) Brigham Young University Law Review; PM Taylor, Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice (CUP, 2005); PG Danchin, ‘Of Prophets and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law’ (2008) 49(2) Harvard Intl LJ 249.
10 See Laura Dudley Jenkins, ‘Legal Limits on Religious Conversion in India’ (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 109; Andrew Huff, ‘Religious Freedom in India and Analysis of the Constitutionality of Anti-Conversion Laws’ (2009) 10(2) Rutgers J L & Religion 1; Leela Fernandes, ‘Unsettled Territories: State, Civil Society and the Politics of Religious Conversion in India’ (2011) 4 Politics and Religion 108; Goldie Osuri, Religious Freedom in India: Sovereignty and (Anti) Conversion (Routledge, 2013).
11 A letter dated 17 September 2003 affirms backing of the following organisations: All Ceylon Hindu Congress (ACHC), All Ceylon Young Men's Hindu Association, Hindu Council of Sri Lanka, Hindu Mantiam, Hindu Women's Society, Vivekananda Society, All Ceylon Buddhist Congress – Colombo, All Ceylon Women's Congress, Bauddha Sanrakshana Sabawa – Colombo, Bauddha Sanrakshana – Kandy, Bodu Pubuduwa Foundation – Panadura, Buddhist Theosophical Society, The Buddhist Times, Center for Buddhist Action, Center for Buddhism (International), Dhammacharinee, Dharmavijaya Foundation, Kalana Mithuru Sevana, Sakyadhita, Sri Lanka Federation of Alumni Association of Buddhist Schools, SUCCESS – Colombo, Thawalama Foundation, Young Men's Buddhist Association – Colombo.
12 The members of the committee were Kandiah Neelakandan (All Ceylon Hindu Congress), Jayantha Wickramasinghe, Hema Goonatilake (editor of Buddhist Times), Anula Wijesundere (former member of the Presidential Commission of the Buddha Sasana), Sivanandini Duraiswami (President of the Hindu Council of Sri Lanka) and Manohara de Silva (attorney at law).
13 Roshini Wickremesinhe, ‘The Role of Government and Judicial Action in Defining Religious Freedom: A Sri Lankan Perspective’ (2009) 2(2) Intl J of Religious Freedom 29, 36.
14 A Owens, ‘Protecting Freedom of and from Religion: Questioning the Law's Ability to Protect Against Unethical Conversions in Sri Lanka’ (2006) 1 Religion & Human Rights 41; A Owens, ‘Using Legislation to Protect Against Unethical Conversions in Sri Lanka’ (2006/2007) 22(2) J of Law & Religion 223.
15 While these penalties were not the main issue in the petitions against the bills, the various potential penalties were often highlighted in news items and reports used in Christian lobbyism.
16 Kokkinakis v Greece (App No 14307/88) (1994) 17 EHRR 397.
17 Prohibition of Forcible Conversion, SC Determination No 4/2004.
18 Kokkinakis v Greece (n 16).
19 SC Determination No 4/2004 (n 17).
20 T Hresko, ‘Rights Rhetoric as an Instrument of Religious Oppression in Sri Lanka’ (2006) 29(1) Boston College Intl & Comparative L Rev 36.
21 M Hertzberg, ‘Waves of Conversion? The Tsunami, “Unethical Conversions,” and Political Buddhism in Sri Lanka’ (2015) 33(1) Intl J of Mass Emergencies & Disasters 55.
22 P Schalk, ‘Present Concepts of Secularism among Ilavars and Lankans’ in P Schalk (ed), Zwischen Säkularismus und Hierokratie: Studien zum Verhältnis von Religion und Staat in Süd- und Ostasien (Uppsala University Library, 2001).
23 B Schonthal, ‘Constitutionalizing Religion: The Pyrrhic Success of Religious Rights in Post-Colonial Sri Lanka’ (2014) 29(3) J of Law & Religion 470.
24 All Ceylon Buddhist Congress, Report of The Commission Appointed To Inquire And Report On The Conversion Of Buddhists In Sri Lanka to Other Religions by Immoral and Fraudulent Means (Colombo, All Ceylon Buddhist Congress, 2012) p 324.
25 M Hertzberg, ‘The Anti-Conversion Bill: Political Buddhism, “Unethical” Conversions and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka’ (PhD diss., University of Bergen 2016) 211.
26 Owens, ‘Protecting Freedom’ (n 14).
27 Asma Jahangir, Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Religious Intolerance: Mission to Sri Lanka, Addendum to the Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to the Commission of Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.3 (12 December 2005) 22.
28 ibid 21.
29 Berkwitz (n 5).
30 However, another private member's bill (Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution) was published in the Gazette on 1 November 2004 and further presented in parliament by the Venerable Ellawella Medhananda Thero, MP, 19 November 2004. This attempt to make Buddhism a state religion in Sri Lanka has held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 17 December 2004. See Owens, ‘Using Legislation’ (n 14).
31 KE Knutson, ‘Breaking the Chains?: Constraint and the Political Rhetoric of Religious Interest Groups’ (2011) 4 Politics & Religion 312.
32 Interview, 9 January 2012.
33 Interview, 4 January 2012.
34 Interview, 13 December 2011.
35 Interview, 4 January 2012.
36 Interview, 4 January 2012.
37 Interview, 26 December 2011.
38 Interview, 26 December 2011.
39 Interview, 26 December 2011.
40 Interview, 3 April 2013.
41 Interview, 26 December 2011.
42 See e.g. organisations such as the Voice of the Martyrs, Compass, International Christian Concern and Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
43 See for example Sri Lankan Christians, at the website <www.srilankanchristians.com>, last accessed 01 September 2016.
44 While anti-conversion legislation never was enacted in Sri Lanka, evangelical Christians still had to cope with informal discrimination by various Buddhist nationalists, both locally and nationally: see O Woods, ‘Sri Lanka's Informal Religious Economy: Evangelical Competitiveness and Buddhist Hegemony in Perspective’ (2012) 51(2) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 203.
45 S Mahmood and PG Danchin, ‘Immunity of Regulation? Antinomies of Religious Freedom’ (2014) 113 South Atlantic Q 129.